Discussion Title: No one should feel obliged to change their lifestyle to combat global warming.

1. No one should feel obliged to change their lifestyle to combat global warming.
1.1. Pro: It is the duty of politicians and political parties to enact the laws and regulations necessary to effect change on the scale necessary.
1.1.1. Con: In democratic states, the ultimate responsibility for political parties falls to the voting public.
1.1.2. Con: The more engaged with the issue of climate change that citizens are, the more likely it is that politicians will enact legislation.
1.1.3. Pro: Citizens are not aware of the [negative externalities](https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Externalities.html) associated with their consumption habits. Therefore, unless politicians pass legislation and regulations, nothing will change.
1.2. Con: Unecological consumerism leads to higher emissions, and so responsibility lies with those consuming too much.
1.3. Pro: Technological innovation will be sufficient to mitigate or reverse the impact of climate change, so there is no need for individuals to change their lifestyle to combat global warming.
1.3.1. Con: The [Rebound effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_\(conservation\)) very often dwarfs increases in efficiency. Thus, such improvements are clearly not enough.
1.4. Con: We should change our lifestyles because the quality of life of people who live in the future matters just as much as our own.
1.5. Con: Humans that live in the West have a particular moral responsibility to change their lifestyles.
1.5.1. Pro: This is because western or first world societies have the [means](http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/faqs/how-much-will-it-cost-to-cut-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/) and infrastructure to drastically cut carbon emissions.
1.5.1.1. Pro: Poorer countries cannot afford to invest in newer more efficient and less environmentally damaging forms of energy or factories etc.
1.5.2. Pro: Many people believe that Western nations are responsible for causing climate change historically, creating a higher obligation on these nations to reduce the impacts of global warming on the world.
1.5.2.1. Con: Responsibility for climate change falls mainly on big business. Only [90 companies](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change) are responsible for 2/3 of human-made global warming emmissions.
1.5.2.1.1. Con: Per Fig. 2 [in the report](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y), state-owned companies and fully nationalised interests contribute the majority of emissions; "government" would be more accurate than "business".
1.5.2.1.2. Con: This report analyses emissions in terms of the original producer of the fossil fuels. As the analysis is only focusing on production and not consumption, individual consumers are being ignored, not proven innocent.
1.5.2.1.3. Con: Many of these are owned/run by democratic states, and so the effects are a result of individuals voting choices.
1.5.2.1.4. Con: Big business responds to demand from consumers. If consumers stop demanding environmentally harmful products companies will be forced to change their products.
1.5.2.2. Pro: When [emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change) are measured looking at historical, rather than current, data, former imperial powers such as the USA \(net\) and UK \(per person\) have created very high emissions across their histories compared to those of many other countries.
1.6. Pro: Changes to individual lifestyles do not make a difference.
1.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.2.1.
1.6.2. Con: Even if a majority of the blame can be passed off to others, each individual is still responsible for their own contributions.
1.6.3. Con: There are countless [changes](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/12/27/35-ways-reduce-carbon-footprint/) that can make a difference.
1.6.4. Pro: The devastating impacts of climate change are now unavoidable. Individual lifestyle changes will not make any difference at this point.
1.6.5. Con: Every individual who changes their behavior has the potential to inspire others to do so. Eventually this can result in the creation of a movement which is transformative.
1.6.5.1. Pro: Celebrities and individuals who have influence have a particular ability to influence others by changing their lifestyles.
1.7. Pro: Changing one's lifestyle easily leads to complacency in the fight against climate change. After all, one can say that one has done one's own share.
1.7.1. Con: The other way around, it may also lead to a stronger desire to see society-wide changes.
1.7.1.1. Pro: If one makes sacrifices for the purpose of fighting global warming, one probably wants to see others making the same sacrifices and not continuing their current lifestyle.
1.8. Con: Changing individual lifestyles have a signalling effect that can result in changes on a larger scale.
1.8.1. Pro: Individuals favouring a more environmentally friendly lifestyle coerces large corporations to attempt to move towards more sustainable ideas in order to appeal to a changing consumer base.
1.8.2. Pro: Once politicians see that there is a serious desire among the population for change, and one that is backed up by personal sacrifices, they will be inclined to follow suit with political change.
1.8.3. Pro: Especially the next generation will be socialized into a different lifestyle and consider it normal.